Role of Propaganda in 'War on Terror' Essay
Examine the role of propaganda in the ‘War on Terror’ after the attacks of 9/11.
I will argue that propaganda has played an extremely important role in justifying the actions for the chief Western participants of the ‘War on Terror’ after the attacks of 9/11. It started with the choice to declare a ‘War on Terror’ and after that propaganda has been used to create the impression that ‘Al Qaeda/Islamo-fascism’ is a global threat on the level of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. We have seen propaganda being used to overstate the threat posed to Western interests before in certain stages of the Cold War. The similarities continue with the aims of this propaganda being broadly the same and the focus of the threat being massively inflated by similar propagandistic methods. To achieve this there needs to be systematic propaganda mechanisms and I will try to outline one model that fits these ends. I suggest that public opinion has been recognised as a ‘second superpower’ and that this is why propaganda is so important. I finally outline Britain’s role in the propaganda around the ‘War on Terror’ and show example of ‘pseudo-information’ being used to mislead for political purposes in both the US and UK.
Soon after the multiple terrorist attacks on key targets within the United States of America on September 11th 2001, the president, George W Bush chose to re-declare a ‘War on Terrorism.’ This was a choice. Other less dramatic courses of action could have been taken. Consider this alongside the House of Commons Defence Committee suggestion that ‘the sources of instability that affect our fundamental interests…are often driven more by how we, our allies and partners choose to react to particular crises, rather than the crises themselves.[1]’ This decision soon led to a total rejection of ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s old approach of not giving ‘Terrorists’ the ‘oxygen of publicity’ with Al Qaeda quickly becoming a familiar organisation to anyone with access to a television.
Not long after the initial declaration of war American Vice-President Dick Cheney asserted that this ‘‘War on Terrorism’ could last fifty years or more[2]’ with critics suggesting that we now have to ‘live with the threat and illusion of endless war.[3]’ The role of propaganda was therefore to create a real-life evil Goldstein, as in George Orwell’s prophetic novel 1984, in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. It is not unusual for politicians to try consolidate power by inspiring fear within a population. There is a historical precedent for this practice, it was said that that these tactics were used ‘throughout the Reagan-Bush years, as the leadership conjured up one devil after another to frighten the populace into obedience.[4]’ But could this ‘rag-tag’ group of Islamic extremists really be considered to be a global threat to American hegemony?
For many people the propagandist demonisation of ‘Al Qaeda’ was a throw back to the middle to late stages of the Cold War. As with the Soviet Union it could not be said that they were not a threat but are similar propaganda methods being used to inflate the threat level? It is interesting listening to ex-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talk about the threat of both Terrorism and Communism, there is a striking similarity. It would be possible to exchange the words Communism and Terrorism in some of his defence speeches without knowing which was current and which was over 15 years old. Going back even further ‘the Truman-McCarthy Red scare helped inaugurate the Cold War and the permanent war economy.[5]’
After the end of the Cold War it was still necessary to have some kind of threat to ensure it could be ‘business as usual’ for Western geopolitical strategists. The propaganda inflating ‘terrorism’ was a parody of ‘the ‘Soviet threat’[that]served four main purposes: it provided a pretext for Western military intervention abroad as ‘defence’ against Soviet expansion; it allowed repressive governments to be supported on the excuse that they were bulwarks against communism; it allowed clampdowns on domestic dissent to take place by referring to infiltration by the enemy; and it allowed huge profits to be made by military industry, which produced the weapons demanded by a permanent arms race.[6]’ This may not be a bi-polar world anymore and Western objectives have not changed noticeably since the end of Cold War but it is the threat of ‘terrorism’ that helps ‘oil the cogs’ of the Industrial Military Complex now.
To achieve these aims a ‘Propaganda Model’ has to be implemented resulting in ‘the modes of handling favoured and inconvenient materials (placement, tone, context, fullness of treatment) differ in ways that serve political ends.[7]’ This model is articulated as having five features within Herman and Chomsky’s book ‘Manufacturing Consent- The Political Economy of the Mass Media.’ It states that ’In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.[8]’ I would simplify the features of this model as: concentrated ownership of media outlets; advertising revenue being their primary income source; reliance on government/business as primary source of material; ‘Flak’ that is created when expected reporting norms are breached and Anti-Communism that has now been replaced by ‘Anti-Islamo fascism.’
Chomsky has described a ‘second superpower, world public opinion[9]’ and suggested that ‘problems of domestic control become particularly severe when the governing authorities carry out policies that are apposed by the general population.[10]’ It is a threat to powerful elites when ‘popular perceptions, rather than governments [are] setting the pace for international diplomacy.[11]’ This in turn leads to ‘the enemy at home often has to be controlled by intensive propaganda.[12]’
Propaganda has played a major role in the ‘War on Terror’ with respects of re-enforcing and exaggerating the threat from Islamic extremists. To look the output in this area from a single primary government source, ex-US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is revealing. He has said that ‘today, the world does face a new threat to peace and freedom. It’s not Adolf Hitler, fascism. It’s not communism. But it’s one that can be as destructive as any-or all, for that matter- and one that has implications for the future that are every bit as monumentous as those we have faced in the past.[13]’ So we are to understand that this ‘War on Terror’ could be as important to the peoples of the world as the Cold War or Second World War. He also warns that ‘we now know thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us’ and that ‘the gathering storm of terrorism will unleash its fury on us all.[14]’
The Iraq Invasion 2003 illustrates that ‘the most important weapon in this ‘war’ is pseudo-information.[15]’ This was used by the American administration to link Saddam Hussein with the attacks of 9/11 to help justify the immanent invasion of Iraq. This ‘government media propaganda assault[16]’ created the illusion that he was “an immediate threat to the US[17]” and was said to have ‘succeeded brilliantly in linking the war in Iraq with the trauma of September 11[18]’ This propaganda campaign resulted in one poll showing that nearly ninety percent of Americans believed that Saddam was ‘aiding and abetting terrorist who are planning future strikes against the US.[19]’
Britain’s chief role in this ‘War on Terror is to act as ‘the leading apologist for US policy[20]’ and as ’international coalition builders in support of US strategy.[21]’ This involves Britain offering ‘token military commitment’ whilst ‘its more useful function being to uphold the pretence of an ‘international coalition.[22]’ This has led to the suggestion that ’Britain under Blair has overtly become chief public propagandist for ‘Western’ strategy.[23]’
Tony Blair had his own propaganda concerns with Iraq ‘he knew he would have to assure Bush that, whatever his domestic problems, he would back military action.[24]’ This then led to political gymnastics because ‘at the same time he had to convince parliament that no decision had been made[25]’ he also had to try convince the British public and ultimately win a commons vote to back a military invasion. This led to the infamous ‘Dodgy Dossier’, the ’45 Minute’ claim and the misrepresentation of the Attorney Generals legal advise but despite all this he got the vote through the Houses of Commons even if the war has ultimately left his reputation in tatters.
With the decision to declare a ‘War on Terrorism’ the US administration had started its propaganda campaign. This then led to unprecedented use of propaganda throughout this ‘War.’ Using all the tricks that had been learned from the Cold War the ‘Al Qaeda’ organisation and Osama bin Laden has been established as the greatest threat to peace and security in the modern world. This is done to ensure the political objectives of Western elites, whilst using long established, highly organised and sophisticated propaganda apparatus. This ‘second superpower’ of public opinion was tamed once again with mis-information but only at the expense of the integrity of our political leaders and system.
Sebastian O’Brien Dec 2006
[1] Web of Deceit, page 75
[2] New Rulers, page 1
[3] Ibid
[4] Hegemony, page 115
[5] Manufacturing, page 32
[6] Web page 76
[7] Manufacturing page 35
[8] Manufacturing page 1
[9] Hegemony page 10
[10] Hegemony page 8
[11] Web page 22
[12] Hegemony page 8
[13] Web page 75
[14] Web page 77
[15] New Rulers page1
[16] Heg page 18
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Web 22
[21] Web 113
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] Blairs 259
[25] Ibid
Bibliography
Web Of Deceipt- Mark Curtis
The New Rulers of the World- John Pilger
Blair’s Wars- John Kampfner
Manufacturing Consent- The Political Economy of The Mas Media- Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky
Hegemony or Survival- Noam Chomsky
I will argue that propaganda has played an extremely important role in justifying the actions for the chief Western participants of the ‘War on Terror’ after the attacks of 9/11. It started with the choice to declare a ‘War on Terror’ and after that propaganda has been used to create the impression that ‘Al Qaeda/Islamo-fascism’ is a global threat on the level of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. We have seen propaganda being used to overstate the threat posed to Western interests before in certain stages of the Cold War. The similarities continue with the aims of this propaganda being broadly the same and the focus of the threat being massively inflated by similar propagandistic methods. To achieve this there needs to be systematic propaganda mechanisms and I will try to outline one model that fits these ends. I suggest that public opinion has been recognised as a ‘second superpower’ and that this is why propaganda is so important. I finally outline Britain’s role in the propaganda around the ‘War on Terror’ and show example of ‘pseudo-information’ being used to mislead for political purposes in both the US and UK.
Soon after the multiple terrorist attacks on key targets within the United States of America on September 11th 2001, the president, George W Bush chose to re-declare a ‘War on Terrorism.’ This was a choice. Other less dramatic courses of action could have been taken. Consider this alongside the House of Commons Defence Committee suggestion that ‘the sources of instability that affect our fundamental interests…are often driven more by how we, our allies and partners choose to react to particular crises, rather than the crises themselves.[1]’ This decision soon led to a total rejection of ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s old approach of not giving ‘Terrorists’ the ‘oxygen of publicity’ with Al Qaeda quickly becoming a familiar organisation to anyone with access to a television.
Not long after the initial declaration of war American Vice-President Dick Cheney asserted that this ‘‘War on Terrorism’ could last fifty years or more[2]’ with critics suggesting that we now have to ‘live with the threat and illusion of endless war.[3]’ The role of propaganda was therefore to create a real-life evil Goldstein, as in George Orwell’s prophetic novel 1984, in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. It is not unusual for politicians to try consolidate power by inspiring fear within a population. There is a historical precedent for this practice, it was said that that these tactics were used ‘throughout the Reagan-Bush years, as the leadership conjured up one devil after another to frighten the populace into obedience.[4]’ But could this ‘rag-tag’ group of Islamic extremists really be considered to be a global threat to American hegemony?
For many people the propagandist demonisation of ‘Al Qaeda’ was a throw back to the middle to late stages of the Cold War. As with the Soviet Union it could not be said that they were not a threat but are similar propaganda methods being used to inflate the threat level? It is interesting listening to ex-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talk about the threat of both Terrorism and Communism, there is a striking similarity. It would be possible to exchange the words Communism and Terrorism in some of his defence speeches without knowing which was current and which was over 15 years old. Going back even further ‘the Truman-McCarthy Red scare helped inaugurate the Cold War and the permanent war economy.[5]’
After the end of the Cold War it was still necessary to have some kind of threat to ensure it could be ‘business as usual’ for Western geopolitical strategists. The propaganda inflating ‘terrorism’ was a parody of ‘the ‘Soviet threat’[that]served four main purposes: it provided a pretext for Western military intervention abroad as ‘defence’ against Soviet expansion; it allowed repressive governments to be supported on the excuse that they were bulwarks against communism; it allowed clampdowns on domestic dissent to take place by referring to infiltration by the enemy; and it allowed huge profits to be made by military industry, which produced the weapons demanded by a permanent arms race.[6]’ This may not be a bi-polar world anymore and Western objectives have not changed noticeably since the end of Cold War but it is the threat of ‘terrorism’ that helps ‘oil the cogs’ of the Industrial Military Complex now.
To achieve these aims a ‘Propaganda Model’ has to be implemented resulting in ‘the modes of handling favoured and inconvenient materials (placement, tone, context, fullness of treatment) differ in ways that serve political ends.[7]’ This model is articulated as having five features within Herman and Chomsky’s book ‘Manufacturing Consent- The Political Economy of the Mass Media.’ It states that ’In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda.[8]’ I would simplify the features of this model as: concentrated ownership of media outlets; advertising revenue being their primary income source; reliance on government/business as primary source of material; ‘Flak’ that is created when expected reporting norms are breached and Anti-Communism that has now been replaced by ‘Anti-Islamo fascism.’
Chomsky has described a ‘second superpower, world public opinion[9]’ and suggested that ‘problems of domestic control become particularly severe when the governing authorities carry out policies that are apposed by the general population.[10]’ It is a threat to powerful elites when ‘popular perceptions, rather than governments [are] setting the pace for international diplomacy.[11]’ This in turn leads to ‘the enemy at home often has to be controlled by intensive propaganda.[12]’
Propaganda has played a major role in the ‘War on Terror’ with respects of re-enforcing and exaggerating the threat from Islamic extremists. To look the output in this area from a single primary government source, ex-US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is revealing. He has said that ‘today, the world does face a new threat to peace and freedom. It’s not Adolf Hitler, fascism. It’s not communism. But it’s one that can be as destructive as any-or all, for that matter- and one that has implications for the future that are every bit as monumentous as those we have faced in the past.[13]’ So we are to understand that this ‘War on Terror’ could be as important to the peoples of the world as the Cold War or Second World War. He also warns that ‘we now know thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us’ and that ‘the gathering storm of terrorism will unleash its fury on us all.[14]’
The Iraq Invasion 2003 illustrates that ‘the most important weapon in this ‘war’ is pseudo-information.[15]’ This was used by the American administration to link Saddam Hussein with the attacks of 9/11 to help justify the immanent invasion of Iraq. This ‘government media propaganda assault[16]’ created the illusion that he was “an immediate threat to the US[17]” and was said to have ‘succeeded brilliantly in linking the war in Iraq with the trauma of September 11[18]’ This propaganda campaign resulted in one poll showing that nearly ninety percent of Americans believed that Saddam was ‘aiding and abetting terrorist who are planning future strikes against the US.[19]’
Britain’s chief role in this ‘War on Terror is to act as ‘the leading apologist for US policy[20]’ and as ’international coalition builders in support of US strategy.[21]’ This involves Britain offering ‘token military commitment’ whilst ‘its more useful function being to uphold the pretence of an ‘international coalition.[22]’ This has led to the suggestion that ’Britain under Blair has overtly become chief public propagandist for ‘Western’ strategy.[23]’
Tony Blair had his own propaganda concerns with Iraq ‘he knew he would have to assure Bush that, whatever his domestic problems, he would back military action.[24]’ This then led to political gymnastics because ‘at the same time he had to convince parliament that no decision had been made[25]’ he also had to try convince the British public and ultimately win a commons vote to back a military invasion. This led to the infamous ‘Dodgy Dossier’, the ’45 Minute’ claim and the misrepresentation of the Attorney Generals legal advise but despite all this he got the vote through the Houses of Commons even if the war has ultimately left his reputation in tatters.
With the decision to declare a ‘War on Terrorism’ the US administration had started its propaganda campaign. This then led to unprecedented use of propaganda throughout this ‘War.’ Using all the tricks that had been learned from the Cold War the ‘Al Qaeda’ organisation and Osama bin Laden has been established as the greatest threat to peace and security in the modern world. This is done to ensure the political objectives of Western elites, whilst using long established, highly organised and sophisticated propaganda apparatus. This ‘second superpower’ of public opinion was tamed once again with mis-information but only at the expense of the integrity of our political leaders and system.
Sebastian O’Brien Dec 2006
[1] Web of Deceit, page 75
[2] New Rulers, page 1
[3] Ibid
[4] Hegemony, page 115
[5] Manufacturing, page 32
[6] Web page 76
[7] Manufacturing page 35
[8] Manufacturing page 1
[9] Hegemony page 10
[10] Hegemony page 8
[11] Web page 22
[12] Hegemony page 8
[13] Web page 75
[14] Web page 77
[15] New Rulers page1
[16] Heg page 18
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Web 22
[21] Web 113
[22] Ibid
[23] Ibid
[24] Blairs 259
[25] Ibid
Bibliography
Web Of Deceipt- Mark Curtis
The New Rulers of the World- John Pilger
Blair’s Wars- John Kampfner
Manufacturing Consent- The Political Economy of The Mas Media- Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky
Hegemony or Survival- Noam Chomsky
posted by Seba at
11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home